This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. NO. 34,205 4 JASON SALAZAR, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF UNION COUNTY 7 John M. Paternoster, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender 12 Mary Barket, Assistant Appellate Defender 13 Santa Fe, NM 14 for Appellant 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 WECHSLER, Judge. 172 {1} Defendant appeals the revocation of his probation. We issued a notice of 1 proposed summary disposition, proposing to affirm. Defendant has filed a combined 2 motion to amend the docketing statement and memorandum in opposition. With 3 respect to the issues previous ly raised, we remain unpersuaded that the district court 4 erred in revoking Defendant’s sentence and requiring him to serve the balance of the 5 sentence. We therefore affirm the substan ce of the district court’s order. However, 6 with respect to the motion to amend, we agree that the order contains an inaccuracy. 7 We therefore remand for technical correction. 8 {2} By his first issue, Defendant has challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to 9 establish that he violated the terms and conditions of his probation. [DS 4] As we 10 previously observed, the State satisf ied its burden by presenting evidence that 11 Defendant failed to carry hi s GPS unit, violated his curfew, and consumed alcohol. 12 [DS 3; CN 2] In his memorandum in op position, Defendant does not dispute this 13 evidence. [MIO 5-6] Instead, he now asserts that the GPS unit and curfew 14 requirements were not reasona bly related to either the offenses for which he was 15 convicted or rehabilitation. [MIO 8-10] See State v. Williams , 2006-NMCA-092, ¶ 3, 16 140 N.M. 194, 141 P.3d 538 (providing that terms and conditions of probation will 17 be set aside if they bear no reasonable relationship to the defendant’s crimes or to 18 deterring future criminality). More specifically, Defendant asserts that his ankle 193 monitor rendered the GPS unit superfluous. [M IO 8-9] However, this matter was not 1 developed on the record belo w, and we have no way of knowing whether the GPS unit 2 served some additional purpose. See State ex rel Children, Youth & Families Dep’t 3 v. Andree G. , 2007-NMCA-156, ¶ 28, 143 N.M. 195, 174 P.3d 531 (observing that 4 factual matters not of record cannot be cons idered on appeal). Defendant also asserts 5 that the 7 p.m. curfew requirement was arbitrary and served no valid purpose. [MIO 6 10] Once again, this matter was not developed below, and Defendant cites no 7 supporting authority. See State v. Leon , 2013-NMCA-011, ¶ 33, 292 P.3d 493 (“In the 8 absence of cited authority, we assume thatnone exists and decline to consider the 9 argument further.”). Finally, Defendant suggests that the probation officer’s testimony 10 about Defendant’s intoxicated condition shoul d be deemed “speculative” and therefore 11 insufficient to establish that he cons umed alcohol. [MIO 11] We disagree. See State 12 v. Privett , 1986-NMSC-025, ¶ 20, 104 N.M. 79, 717 P.2d 55 (“[I]t is well recognized 13 that laymen are capable of assessing the eff ects of intoxication as a matter within their 14 common knowledge and experience.”). 15 {3} Defendant also renews his second issue on appeal, contending that the district 16 court abused its discretion by revoking hi s probation and requiring him to serve the 17 balance of his sentence. [DS 4; MIO 11-13] However, as we previously observed, in 18 light of his violations, the district court acted well within its discretion. See generally 194 NMSA 1978, § 31-21-15 (B) (1989); see, e.g., Leon , 2013-NMCA-011, ¶¶ 38-39 1 (holding that the probation officer’s testimony that the defendant had violated the 2 conditions of his probation by possessing al cohol was sufficient to support the 3 revocation of his probation). Although Defendant suggests that the violations were 4 “minor” [MIO 12-13] and, as such, lesser sanctions would havebeen appropriate, 5 [MIO 12-13] the district court could reasonably have differed in its assessment. In the 6 final analysis, the district court was under no obligation to continue Defendant’s 7 probation. See State v. Mendoza1978-NMSC-048, ¶ 5, 91 N.M. 688, 579 P.2d 1255 8 (“Probation is not a right but a privilege.”). 9 {4} By his third issue, Defendant continues to assert that the sentence constitutes 10 cruel and unusual punishment. [MIO 13-14] As grounds, he focuses on the “minor” 11 and/or “technical” nature of the violations . [MIO 13-14] However, as we previously 12 observed, the district court could have view ed the violations as more substantive and 13 significant in nature than Defendant suggest s. And ultimately, insofar as the district 14 court acted within its statutory au thority, we reject the argument. See State v. Sanchez , 15 2001-NMCA-060, ¶ 27, 130 N.M. 602, 28 P.3d 1143 (observing parenthetically that 16 “merely requiring [a] defendant to serve [his] original sentence following revocation 17 [is] not cruel and unusual punishment where th e original sentence [is] within statutory 18 limits”). 195 {5} Finally, we turn to the motion to ame nd. Defendant asserts that the order 1 revoking his probation is “manifestly wrong” to the extent that it indicates that he 2 waived a hearing and admitted the probation violations. [MIO 14-15; RP 182] The 3 record proper supports Defendant’s asserti on, reflecting that Defendant entered a 4 denial and a hearing on the merits was actually conducted. [RP 175, 178-80] We 5 therefore grant the motion to amend, and weagree that the error should be corrected. 6 {6} Accordingly, for the reasons statedabove and in the notice of proposed 7 summary disposition, we affirm on the merits. However, we remand for technical 8 correction of the order. 9 {7} IT IS SO ORDERED. 10

__________ ______________________ 11 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 12

WE CONCUR: 13

________________________________ 14 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 15

________________________________ 16 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 17